Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices

We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were return...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1995-05, Vol.41 (5), p.448-452
Hauptverfasser: Levine, Edwin G., Brandt, Lawrence J., Plumeri, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 452
container_issue 5
container_start_page 448
container_title Gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 41
creator Levine, Edwin G.
Brandt, Lawrence J.
Plumeri, Peter
description We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77398950</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0016510705800021</els_id><sourcerecordid>77398950</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a09e0849c2026be517aa4f1e5f9d327f8e3de58351e6bfa9ad4b1c84f4e2b8d73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EKqXwEyplQAiGgO3EscMAQhUflSoxALPlOGdh1MTFTir13-O2UVeWu-Geu3v1IDQl-JZgUtx94FhTRjC_xuxGYIxpSo7QmOCSpwXn5TEaH5BTdBbCT2QEzcgIjXhBGKV0jB7mrXG-gTrRrg3QdveJSkLv17BJnElW35tgtVVt4vpOuwZCoto6WXmlO6shnKMTo5YBLoY-QV8vz5-zt3Tx_jqfPS1SneekSxUuAYu81BTTogJGuFK5IcBMWWeUGwFZDUxkjEBRGVWqOq-IFrnJgVai5tkEXe3vrrz77SF0srFBw3KpWnB9kJxnpSgZjiDbg9q7EDwYufK2UX4jCZZbb3LnTW6lSMzkzpskcW86POiraOOwNYiK88throJWS-NVq204YDF5jjMRscc9BlHG2oKXQVtoNdTWg-5k7ew_Qf4AiaCJMQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>77398950</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Levine, Edwin G. ; Brandt, Lawrence J. ; Plumeri, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Levine, Edwin G. ; Brandt, Lawrence J. ; Plumeri, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7615222</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GAENBQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Communication ; Endoscopy ; Informed Consent ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Malpractice - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous. Technology ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Truth Disclosure ; United States</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1995-05, Vol.41 (5), p.448-452</ispartof><rights>1995 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved</rights><rights>1995 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a09e0849c2026be517aa4f1e5f9d327f8e3de58351e6bfa9ad4b1c84f4e2b8d73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a09e0849c2026be517aa4f1e5f9d327f8e3de58351e6bfa9ad4b1c84f4e2b8d73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=3514038$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7615222$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Levine, Edwin G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brandt, Lawrence J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plumeri, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Malpractice - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous. Technology</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Truth Disclosure</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EKqXwEyplQAiGgO3EscMAQhUflSoxALPlOGdh1MTFTir13-O2UVeWu-Geu3v1IDQl-JZgUtx94FhTRjC_xuxGYIxpSo7QmOCSpwXn5TEaH5BTdBbCT2QEzcgIjXhBGKV0jB7mrXG-gTrRrg3QdveJSkLv17BJnElW35tgtVVt4vpOuwZCoto6WXmlO6shnKMTo5YBLoY-QV8vz5-zt3Tx_jqfPS1SneekSxUuAYu81BTTogJGuFK5IcBMWWeUGwFZDUxkjEBRGVWqOq-IFrnJgVai5tkEXe3vrrz77SF0srFBw3KpWnB9kJxnpSgZjiDbg9q7EDwYufK2UX4jCZZbb3LnTW6lSMzkzpskcW86POiraOOwNYiK88throJWS-NVq204YDF5jjMRscc9BlHG2oKXQVtoNdTWg-5k7ew_Qf4AiaCJMQ</recordid><startdate>19950501</startdate><enddate>19950501</enddate><creator>Levine, Edwin G.</creator><creator>Brandt, Lawrence J.</creator><creator>Plumeri, Peter</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19950501</creationdate><title>Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices</title><author>Levine, Edwin G. ; Brandt, Lawrence J. ; Plumeri, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-a09e0849c2026be517aa4f1e5f9d327f8e3de58351e6bfa9ad4b1c84f4e2b8d73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Malpractice - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous. Technology</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Truth Disclosure</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Levine, Edwin G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brandt, Lawrence J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plumeri, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Levine, Edwin G.</au><au>Brandt, Lawrence J.</au><au>Plumeri, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>1995-05-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>448</spage><epage>452</epage><pages>448-452</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><coden>GAENBQ</coden><abstract>We mailed a survey to the domestic membership of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in an attempt to investigate how endoscopists obtained informed consent and the effect of these practices on medical malpractice claims. One thousand two hundred thirty-two (23.8%) surveys were returned. We determined that although informed consent is obtained in 98.5% of endoscopic cases, 30% of physicians leave the task of obtaining such consent to hospital or office personnel. Although endoscopists tend to be complete in terms of describing the risks of procedures to patients, all risks are not revealed equally; some complications, for example, the risk for requiring a colostomy, are disclosed by relatively few physicians, perhaps revealing a higher comfort level with a particular procedure, such as colonoscopy. Like-wise, endoscopists generally explain the benefits of and alternatives to procedures, but they do not explain the more hazardous alternatives. Documentation of the informed consent process is an area in which physicians could be more thorough. Twenty-one percent of respondents had been sued, and in 42% of these instances, the informed consent process was an issue. Lawsuits in general (38%) changed the way respondents obtained consent, especially (64%) when this process had been an issue in the suit. No correlation was found between either the thoroughness of the informed consent process or the status of the person who obtained consent and the likelihood of being sued.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>7615222</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-5107
ispartof Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1995-05, Vol.41 (5), p.448-452
issn 0016-5107
1097-6779
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77398950
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Communication
Endoscopy
Informed Consent
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Malpractice - legislation & jurisprudence
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous. Technology
Physician-Patient Relations
Surveys and Questionnaires
Truth Disclosure
United States
title Informed consent: a survey of physician outcomes and practices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T02%3A23%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Informed%20consent:%20a%20survey%20of%20physician%20outcomes%20and%20practices&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Levine,%20Edwin%20G.&rft.date=1995-05-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=448&rft.epage=452&rft.pages=448-452&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft.coden=GAENBQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)80002-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77398950%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=77398950&rft_id=info:pmid/7615222&rft_els_id=S0016510705800021&rfr_iscdi=true